Crap Sentencing Thread

DrumSteve · 23-02-2017 01:50PM #1

This weeks crap sentencing is brought to you by Judge Melanie Greally:

http://www.thejournal.ie/prison-cyclist-review-extension-3254296-Feb2017/

AN UNLICENSED DRIVER who “ploughed into” a 62-year-old cyclist – killing him – and drove away has been given an extra nine months in jail following an appeal by prosecutors.
Christopher Coleman (27), of Reuben Street, in the capital, had pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to dangerous driving causing the death of Eugene Maher (62) at Clontarf Road, Dublin on 30 June 2015. Coleman also admitted leaving the scene of the crash and driving without insurance.
He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years imprisonment by Judge Melanie Greally on 23 June last and was also disqualified from driving for 15 years.

But wait, there's more!

The DPP successfully sought a review of Coleman’s sentence on grounds that it was “unduly lenient”.

The Court of Appeal resentenced Coleman today to six years imprisonment with the final two years and nine months suspended. The three-judge court effectively increased his jail time by nine months.

An extra nine months! That'll learn him wont it.

She said the car crashed into Maher, somebody “popped out”, took a look at the man on the ground, got back into the car and the car drove away. Bystanders, in response to this, were saying “don’t drive off” and other drivers were flashing their lights, Brennan said.

This mans life is worth less than 4 years in prison. This country is a ****show.

johnnyskeleton · 23-02-2017 01:53PM

She should have sentenced him to go back in time and not knock the cyclist off his bike. That's the only fair sentence. Everything else is going to be inferior.

Gatling · 23-02-2017 01:59PM

Increased but suspended most of the increase bit of a pointless exercise love to know why they suspended 2 years and 9 months of the increase on the leaniant sentence

DrumSteve · 23-02-2017 02:02PM

Gatling wrote: »

Increased but suspended most of the increase bit of a pointless exercise love to know why they suspended 2 years and 9 months of the increase on the leaniant sentence

Can't figure that out myself.

He was already disqualified from driving.

Gatling · 23-02-2017 02:10PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Can't figure that out myself.

He was already disqualified from driving.

Apparently he was from Fatima mansions and was in a 12 year relationship mitigating circumstances

The sentencing judge noted that Coleman had been raised under very challenging circumstances in Fatima Mansions. “Against the odds,” she noted, Coleman did not succumb to a life of drugs or alcoholic abus and, apart from the road traffic matters, had not led a life characterised by criminality, the sentencing judge noted.

"He was in full time employment and had been in a stable relationship for 12 years at the time of the offence.

In view of the mitigation, the court suspended the final two years and nine months. The 15 year disqualification remained in place."

Link

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/its-as-bad-as-going-out-and-killing-somebody-by-the-hand-of-a-gun-or-by-your-fist-unlicensed-driver-who-killed-cyclist-62-in-hit-and-run-given-extra-jail-time-35476155.html

flatface · 23-02-2017 02:10PM

surely the sentence length is increased by the crime of fleeing the scene? If he had stayed at the scene what would he have got? 6 months suspended? The system is loco.

infogiver · 23-02-2017 02:14PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Can't figure that out myself.

He was already disqualified from driving.

But he had a disadvantaged upbringing in Fatima Mansions.
When that happens you get a certificate when your 18 which you produce every time you make a "mistake" so all the woolly handwringing left wing **** who run the country can pat you on the head and apologise to you for inconveniencing you by making you get out of bed to appear in court.

DrumSteve · 23-02-2017 02:16PM

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently he was from Fatima mansions and was in a 12 year relationship mitigating circumstances

The sentencing judge noted that Coleman had been raised under very challenging circumstances in Fatima Mansions. “Against the odds,” she noted, Coleman did not succumb to a life of drugs or alcoholic abus and, apart from the road traffic matters, had not led a life characterised by criminality, the sentencing judge noted.

"He was in full time employment and had been in a stable relationship for 12 years at the time of the offence.

In view of the mitigation, the court suspended the final two years and nine months. The 15 year disqualification remained in place."

Link

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/its-as-bad-as-going-out-and-killing-somebody-by-the-hand-of-a-gun-or-by-your-fist-unlicensed-driver-who-killed-cyclist-62-in-hit-and-run-given-extra-jail-time-35476155.html

The thing is they disqualifed him the last time too, if he had of heeded this ban, the cyclist in question would still be alive.

While not being involved in criminality is all well and good, he showed how much respect he has for the law by driving that car.

Gatling · 23-02-2017 02:23PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

The thing is they disqualifed him the last time too, if he had of heeded this ban, the cyclist in question would still be alive.

He's actually never held a license and had 10 previous motor convictions out of 15 so banning him had zero effect on him

tomofson · 23-02-2017 02:40PM

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

stimpson · 23-02-2017 03:20PM

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

Did he accidentally leave the scene?

tomofson · 23-02-2017 03:24PM

stimpson wrote: »

Did he accidentally leave the scene?

If I was to hazard a guess I'd say not that wasn't an accident, but maybe a moment of panic.

eamonnq · 23-02-2017 03:33PM

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

A genuine accident ??!!!

"The car had been seen driving dangerously, at speed and on the wrong side of the road. Witnesses said people were hanging out of the window interacting with another car.

Ms Brennan said the car was gauged to be travelling at speeds between 72 and 79 km/hr in a 50km/hr zone.
She said the car crashed into Mr Maher, somebody “popped out”, took a look at the man on the ground, got back into the car and the car drove away. Bystanders, in response to this, were saying “don't drive off” and other drivers were flashing their lights, Ms Brennan said."

Gatling · 23-02-2017 03:34PM

tomofson wrote: »

If I was to hazard a guess I'd say not that wasn't an accident, but maybe a moment of panic.

Seen to be speeding , driving erratically and driving on the wrong side of the road and highly likely alcohol involved

r93kaey5p2izun · 23-02-2017 03:38PM

How is being in a LTR a mitigating factor? That's disgraceful.

GritBiscuit · 23-02-2017 03:38PM

While I often disagree with it, I can usually follow the general logic of the Irish legal system - but the sentencing around driving crimes just baffles me, particularly those involving fatalities vs cars or drivers that have no right to be on the road...that's not an accident, that's wanton disregard for both the law and everybody else on the road.

Drivers are licenced because their vehicles turn into deadly weapons in the wrong hands. While I appreciate guns only have one function, Mr Maher's family have a point. If I recklessly shoot a gun that I've no licence for - especially having previously been banned from ownership - and killed someone, I'd quite rightly be looking at a lengthy stretch regardless of "mitigating circumstances"...but somehow drive a 2 ton lump of metal at speed/dangerously/unlicenced and uninsured and it's all just an unfortunate accident, here's a slap on the wrist.

I'd love to see a fixed X-year jail-time penalty addition for driving without a licence and/or insurance/NCT (or whatever else a vehicle or its driver requires to legally be allowed on the road) in death by dangerous/reckless driving cases - and all to run consecutively...none of this concurrent nonsense. If new prisons need to be built, so be it. Something has to change this prevailing laissez-faire attitude by career criminals, the judiciary and legislatures alike towards behaviour that endangers, destroys or ends the lives of innocent law-abiding citizens.

Noveight · 23-02-2017 03:38PM

Incredibly lenient.

It was a good idea to make a thread for all arguably lenient sentences. I see it being a busy one, unfortunately.

Lackey · 23-02-2017 03:52PM

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

I call bulls@&t on every this every time.

'I stabbed him but didn't mean to kill him'
'I jumped on his head, but I didn't mean to kill him'
'I drove like a psycho, but didn't mean to kill him'

Everyone knows 'if I do this...x could happen' wipes out the any excuse of 'accident' when it involves crimes like this.

23-02-2017 04:46PM

Noveight wrote: »

Incredibly lenient.

It was a good idea to make a thread for all arguably lenient sentences. I see it being a busy one, unfortunately.

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

DrumSteve · 23-02-2017 04:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

A man kills another man while driving.

The killer is unlicensed and already banned from driving. Fled the scene of the crime also.

That merits a lot more than the time he will spend in prison.

GritBiscuit · 23-02-2017 05:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

Does it tho? As I'm sure you'll be well aware it was only back in 1990 that the marital rape exemption was removed from Irish statute and thus the judiciary would no longer consider these perfectly lawful attacks, even when perpetrated against a partner who had left the marriage! Sometimes laws and sentencing ARE just "outrageous" and need to be changed in line with the changing habits and outrage towards particular crimes in society...

r93kaey5p2izun · 23-02-2017 05:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

I understand your point I think Conor - that the sentence is legally correct given reference to precedent - but I don't think that's the aim of the thread. It might depend on your terms of reference for leniency though - you may enjoy arguing the legal precedents (and undoubtedly you are correct and will win the argument), but others are surely thinking about ordinary joe soap's feelings on what constitutes justice and fair punishment in our society.

Many people feel the precedent is wrong and that sentences are frequently inadequate, not that judges are necessarily imposing lenient sentences wrongly. I trust that judges are, for the most part, correctly applying the law and precedent etc when they decide on sentences, and that the appeals process takes care of errors. But how do these sentencing norms and precedents come about and how can they be changed if the majority of people feel they are inadequate? Who first decided growing up in Fatima Mansions or similar constitutes mitigating circumstances? If most people in our society feel tougher sentencing is needed then how do we work to achieve that? Genuine question because I'm sick and tired of having my life blighted by people with a long rap sheet of violent crimes who spend very little time in jail and are free to ruin people's lives then cry "but Neilstown" and get a suspended sentence.

Winterlong · 23-02-2017 05:12PM

We need more prisons.
Harsher sentences in fairer courts.
Better policing.
Better sense of justice for ordinary decent people who manage to get thru life without harming other people or their property.

I would be happy to take a tax hike to pay for this.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 23-02-2017 05:20PM

There was a request recently from the deposit to the courts of criminal appeal to issue sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving offenses. The courts refused.

23-02-2017 05:31PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

A man kills another man while driving

It can also be put as "a man kills another man but did not intend to".

Both are correct. Either way, it should not be considered next or near the category where intent is involved.

Yourself isit · 23-02-2017 05:32PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

Why can't we point to other jurisdictions?

Two men got ten years recently on England for not servicing a vehicle properly. Not driving it incorrectly.

The argument that we have to reference other decisions by a court system we consider defective makes little sense.

Noveight · 23-02-2017 05:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

Indeed, absolutely. It would certainly make for an interesting thread, a comparison-based approach.

Yourself isit · 23-02-2017 06:29PM

Noveight wrote: »

Indeed, absolutely. It would certainly make for an interesting thread, a comparison-based approach.

A comparison based approach within Ireland would be pointless.

Samuel T. Cogley · 23-02-2017 08:29PM

I'm the first to jump on these threads to essentially agree with pleas of mitigation. Being from Fatima mansions has absolutely nothing, not one thing with one's driving. The current ten year maximum sentence for dangerous driving is a joke in of it self. This lad should have been looking at ten years minimum.

Kitsunegari · 23-02-2017 08:35PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

While I often disagree with it, I can usually follow the general logic of the Irish legal system - but the sentencing around driving crimes just baffles me, particularly those involving fatalities vs cars or drivers that have no right to be on the road...that's not an accident, that's wanton disregard for both the law and everybody else on the road.

Drivers are licenced because their vehicles turn into deadly weapons in the wrong hands. While I appreciate guns only have one function, Mr Maher's family have a point. If I recklessly shoot a gun that I've no licence for - especially having previously been banned from ownership - and killed someone, I'd quite rightly be looking at a lengthy stretch regardless of "mitigating circumstances"...but somehow drive a 2 ton lump of metal at speed/dangerously/unlicenced and uninsured and it's all just an unfortunate accident, here's a slap on the wrist.

I'd love to see a fixed X-year jail-time penalty addition for driving without a licence and/or insurance/NCT (or whatever else a vehicle or its driver requires to legally be allowed on the road) in death by dangerous/reckless driving cases - and all to run consecutively...none of this concurrent nonsense. If new prisons need to be built, so be it. Something has to change this prevailing laissez-faire attitude by career criminals, the judiciary and legislatures alike towards behaviour that endangers, destroys or ends the lives of innocent law-abiding citizens.

You follow the logic of continually releasing re-offenders back into society? I really find it hard to understand the logic of our criminal justice system. We need to introduced mandatory sentences for repeat offenders and introduce longer sentancing across the board. We're crap at deterring crime and rehabilitating prisoners.

Samuel T. Cogley · 23-02-2017 08:41PM

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You follow the logic of continually releasing re-offenders back into society? I really find it hard to understand the logic of our criminal justice system. We need to introduced mandatory sentences for repeat offenders and introduce longer sentancing across the board. We're crap at deterring crime and rehabilitating prisoners.

Yeah, see the problem is that doesn't work.

You need to rehabilitate - which to be fair you did call for. Longer sentences do nothing to reduce crime, expect in very certain circumstances.

Crap Sentencing Thread

Comments